Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

If only we'd had a thread to discuss Uber.

[The Brain]

I have never went to Oovoo Javer.

[Tamas]

IIRC Just Eat processes my payment to them and then sends it to the takeaway place, or at least the payment interface is the same for every Just Eat order. And I don't see the distinction between the takeaway place in general vs. their driver - they offer a service via a platform, the platform charges the customer for it, takes its cut then gives the rest to the takeaway place. If we can argue that Uber owes the drivers paid leave, then surely we can argue that Just Eat owes the same to the staff of the takeaway places they sign a contract with as well.

Also, if Uber drivers ARE employees, shall they be allowed to also utilise Uber competitors as well? I remember once I was trying to figure something out about Heathrow (paying for parking or somesuch) and happened upon a forum with a lot of these drivers posting. Almost all of them mentioned they run both Uber and Lyft and take jobs from both.

If a regular employee cannot be prevented by their employer to freely choose their working hours, not just their time but quantity as well, and can also freely contract with direct competitors as well and freely share their hours between the two, then that is TREMENDOUSLY good news I am glad to be aware of, as a regular employee.

[garbon]

Your first argument seems very weak. The takeaway employees already have an employer.

[The Brain]

IIRC Just Eat processes my payment to them and then sends it to the takeaway place, or at least the payment interface is the same for every Just Eat order. And I don't see the distinction between the takeaway place in general vs. their driver - they offer a service via a platform, the platform charges the customer for it, takes its cut then gives the rest to the takeaway place. If we can argue that Uber owes the drivers paid leave, then surely we can argue that Just Eat owes the same to the staff of the takeaway places they sign a contract with as well.

Also, if Uber drivers ARE employees, shall they be allowed to also utilise Uber competitors as well? I remember once I was trying to figure something out about Heathrow (paying for parking or somesuch) and happened upon a forum with a lot of these drivers posting. Almost all of them mentioned they run both Uber and Lyft and take jobs from both.

If a regular employee cannot be prevented by their employer to freely choose their working hours, not just their time but quantity as well, and can also freely contract with direct competitors as well and freely share their hours between the two, then that is TREMENDOUSLY good news I am glad to be aware of, as a regular employee.

What does your contract say?

Edit: compared to the Uber contracts.

[Tamas]

What does your contract say?

Aren't we arguing that what the Uber drivers' contract says is not proper and should be put more in line with the benefits granted by my (regular) contract? The benefits they previously forego willingly in exchange of ( at least perceived) benefits forbidden by my contract? Then it stands to reason to have my contract be granted benefits I forego willingly in exchange of (at least perceived) benefits forbidden by their original contract.

[The Brain]

What does your contract say?

Aren't we arguing that what the Uber drivers' contract says is not proper and should be put more in line with the benefits granted by my (regular) contract? The benefits they previously forego willingly in exchange of ( at least perceived) benefits forbidden by my contract? Then it stands to reason to have my contract be granted benefits I forego willingly in exchange of (at least perceived) benefits forbidden by their original contract.

I honestly don't know what the issue being debated is exactly. If the problem is Uber not adhering to laws then the problem isn't the Uber contracts (contracts don't have to and indeed cannot regulate what's required by law).

[Tamas]

As I understand it, some guys signed up as drivers with Uber and then found themselves disappointed that the contract they signed did not give them the protections normally granted to full time employment.

[Sheilbh]

Aren't we arguing that what the Uber drivers' contract says is not proper and should be put more in line with the benefits granted by my (regular) contract? The benefits they previously forego willingly in exchange of ( at least perceived) benefits forbidden by my contract? Then it stands to reason to have my contract be granted benefits I forego willingly in exchange of (at least perceived) benefits forbidden by their original contract.

One other slight wrinkle is that there wasn't actually a written agreement between Uber London and the drivers. So the courts had to look at conduct - basically there was a contract between the drivers and Uber BV (the Dutch company that provides the app) but not with Uber London (the UK entity that held Uber's private hire vehicle licence, took bookings, made payments, decided whether or not to refund trips - paid for by drivers etc).

A contract won't necessarily make you an employee if you're not, but not having one made Uber's argument that Uber London was just a booking agent for the drivers pretty difficult.

All of what you and Yi are saying is allowed in the UK in contracts between commercial parties. Contracts with consumers and with employees are treated differently because there's an imbalance of power (and, generally, access to legal advice). So there are lots of terms that you cannot include in a consumer contract and the courts tend to take a pretty strict approach on what's allowed. Similarly with employees the courts recognise that employers with legal advisors might draft contracts saying "I am a self-employed contractor" - so they look at what actually happens because being an employee is defined in law. There's something similar with tenants and landlords - I've had contracts saying it's a "licence" not a "tenancy", which is probably nonsense and again the courts will actually look at the facts not just the contract written by the side with lawyer.

From the ruling the courts also looked at European law which deals somewhat with who is or isn't a worker, they also looked at similar decisions in the Canadian Supreme Court so I don't think the UK is an outlier on this.

Also, if Uber drivers ARE employees, shall they be allowed to also utilise Uber competitors as well? I remember once I was trying to figure something out about Heathrow (paying for parking or somesuch) and happened upon a forum with a lot of these drivers posting. Almost all of them mentioned they run both Uber and Lyft and take jobs from both.

If a regular employee cannot be prevented by their employer to freely choose their working hours, not just their time but quantity as well, and can also freely contract with direct competitors as well and freely share their hours between the two, then that is TREMENDOUSLY good news I am glad to be aware of, as a regular employee.

Uber drivers were employees until 2016 (when the first ruling in the Employment Tribunal came in). Since then Uber have made a lot of changes - which may or may not enough - but that's involved giving drivers a lot more freedom to avoid the risk of them being employees. I think that's when they started allowing drivers to use multiple apps to pick up rides.

Additionally, and this is an honest question: are such concerns voiced and addressed in other industries as well? If I find a freelance electrician via Checkatrade.com for example, will Checkatrade offer employee rights to the electrician?

There have been loads of cases around who is and isn't an employee in different sectors. There's been case about valeters, carpenters, partners in law firms, arbitrators, minicab drivers, lap dancers etc.

I'm not sure but I don't think Checkatrade would be employers, but I thnk Pimlico Plumbers would.

[Jacob]

IIRC Just Eat processes my payment to them and then sends it to the takeaway place, or at least the payment interface is the same for every Just Eat order. And I don't see the distinction between the takeaway place in general vs. their driver - they offer a service via a platform, the platform charges the customer for it, takes its cut then gives the rest to the takeaway place. If we can argue that Uber owes the drivers paid leave, then surely we can argue that Just Eat owes the same to the staff of the takeaway places they sign a contract with as well.

You can argue whatever you want, but I don't think anyone other than you are making this argument. It seems pretty tenuous to me. If takeaway employee staff are entitled to holiday pay and other benefits, and I'm guesing they are, surely the takeaway places - the actual employer - provides those benefits.

Also, if Uber drivers ARE employees, shall they be allowed to also utilise Uber competitors as well? I remember once I was trying to figure something out about Heathrow (paying for parking or somesuch) and happened upon a forum with a lot of these drivers posting. Almost all of them mentioned they run both Uber and Lyft and take jobs from both.

That's a good point, and I'm sure that if Uber does end up accepting treating their drivers as employees they'll move to stop that.

If a regular employee cannot be prevented by their employer to freely choose their working hours, not just their time but quantity as well, and can also freely contract with direct competitors as well and freely share their hours between the two, then that is TREMENDOUSLY good news I am glad to be aware of, as a regular employee.

Who has made such an argument? Seems to me that the argument - or rather the ruling - is that that's one typical characteristics of being a contractor. And that allowing that (partially, because they penalize not taking a fare) is not sufficient by itself when other characteristics are not met (i.e. controlling the vehicle requirements, penalizing performance, controlling communication between driver and client et. al.).

Did you read the excerpt of the ruling Sheilbh posted? Because it's all laid out there pretty clearly, IMO.

[Zoupa]

Am I understanding you correctly that you're okay with people negotiating away their rights?

So it's too bad for people who are willing to negotiate away their employee rights that they can't work for companies that'd prefer not to accord them those rights.

Similarly, is it too bad that people who are willing to negotiate away their right to work in a safe environment are not able to work for companies that are sanctioned for not following occupational health and safety rules?

Or for people who don't mind be subject to racist or sexist harassment to negotiate away their rights so they can work for employers who'd prefer to be openly bigoted against them?

... and so on?

I'm OK with all of those.  Free will trumps all.

However, that doesn't strictly apply to the Uber UK situation, since they entered into contract with Uber before the court had ruled.

When did you go full libertarian dude.

[Zoupa]

Also you have to be pretty blind to look at Uber drivers and gig-economy workers and think "these folks are just trying to make a few bucks on the side on their own terms".

Why do these jobs exist? Why are those folks taking those jobs? Why do modern societies require a substantial number of their citizens to work more than one job? Or more than 40 hours a week (an arbitrary number to begin with)? Or both?

There are rules against predatory lending. This is predatory employment.

Exploitation is exploitation. We need to fix the bigger issues of income inequality.

[Admiral Yi]

Until you create utopia, can people who want to make extra money do so?

[Zoupa]

So basically don't address the underlying issue(s), but keep wage theft and underpaid service worker classes, gotcha.

[Zoupa]

I'm OK with all of those.  Free will trumps all.

Fair enough. Thanks for answering.

I should have gone the Jacob method.